Christopher C Stacy wrote:
>
> It seems pointless to debate a vague claim that something is "better".
Butt ze Haskell lenkwedge iz pure, zerefore it musst be better,
Herr Stacy...
Well, sorry, just trying to avoid approaching Godwins law _that_
directly. I leave the task to anyone replying to this message.
To get a little bit more on-topic, why is it that a pure language
is often considered superior? Java is more pure than C++, therefore
it encourages pure OOP, which of course is better than OOP and
procedural programming mixed together, yadda yadda.
Or to approach this from a different angle: Did anything pure
ever succeed? Windows and UNIX certainly aren't. C? You're
joking, aren't you? And our favourite marvelous toy Lisp
doesn't purity, either.
Complexity seems to win most of the time. Or we all would
be bacterias.
...Michael...